Re: JOHN HARE
And: E.A. GLADWIN; JOHN STONER AND AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION
No. NTG2 of 1988
FED No. 331
Administrative Law
COURT
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Sheppard J.(1)
CATCHWORDS
Administrative Law - judicial review - funding of political party for election campaigns - disclosure by party of donations - notice requiring secretary of company to produce documents showing receipts of money by company - company trustee of trust connected with political party - secretary of company also the agent of the party for the purposes of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 - statement in notice that authorized officer giving it had reasonable grounds to believe that secretary capable of producing documents relating to a possible contravention of the Act or to a return furnished under the Act - whether authorized officer had reasonable grounds for belief - whether form of notice invalid for failure to state grounds of belief and/or the relevance of the documents to any possible contravention of the Act or to a return - whether requirement for production too widely expressed - whether secretary of company accorded natural justice or procedural fairness - whether secretary entitled to rely on privilege against self-incrimination.
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, ss. 4, 287, 303, 304, 315, 316
HEARING
SYDNEY
#DATE 4:7:1988
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr M. J. Neil, Q.C. and Mr L. Ellison
Solicitors for the Applicant: Messrs. Loftus & Cameron
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. G. Downes, Q.C. and Mr. T. Reiley
Solicitors for the Respondents: Australian Government Solicitor
ORDER
The application be dismissed.
The applicant pay the respondents' costs thereof.
There be liberty to each party to apply on two days' notice as they may be advised for an order in relation to the documents lodged by the applicant with the Registrar.
NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
JUDGE1
By his amended application in this matter the applicant claims in the alternative an order in the nature of a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from taking any further steps or action pursuant to a notice dated 26 February 1988 to the applicant purportedly given under subsec. 316(3) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, an order in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the said notice, an injunction restraining the respondents and each of them from taking any step in reliance upon the notice, a declaration that the notice is invalid and relief under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977.
The Legislation
In order to understand the claims for relief which are made it is necessary to refer to a number of provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act ("the Act"), the notice and some of the matters referred to in evidence. Part XX of the Act is headed, "Election Funding and Financial Disclosure". Section 287 contains a number of definitions. Section 288 provides for the appointment of agents by political parties. Division 3 of Part XX…
Continue reading Hare, J. v Gladwin, E.A
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Hare, J. v Gladwin, E.A [1988] FCA 331
- Case
- [1988] FCA 331
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether the authorized officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the secretary could produce documents relating to a possible contravention of the Act or to a return furnished under the Act. This involved examining the sufficiency of the notice and whether it met the requirements of natural justice and procedural fairness. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether the requirement for document production was too widely expressed and whether the secretary was entitled to invoke privilege against self-incrimination.
In its reasoning, the court found that the authorized officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the secretary could produce the relevant documents, as the notice was issued in the context of an ongoing investigation and the officer had access to information suggesting the secretary's potential involvement. The court further held that the form of the notice was not invalid due to its failure to explicitly state the grounds of belief or the relevance of the documents, as these omissions did not vitiate the notice. The court also determined that the requirement for production was not too widely expressed and did not deny the secretary natural justice or procedural fairness. Lastly, the court ruled that the secretary was not entitled to rely on privilege against self-incrimination in this context, as it was not an appropriate defence in the circumstances presented.
The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs. The court granted liberty to each party to apply for an order in relation to the documents lodged by the applicant with the Registrar, on two days' notice as they may be advised.
Orders
Orders of the court
The application be dismissed.
The applicant pay the respondents' costs thereof.
There be liberty to each party to apply on two days' notice as they may be advised for an order in relation to the documents lodged by the applicant with the Registrar.
NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.